Replacing Image(Device, ImageData) constructor in DefaultRangeIndicator with Image(Device, ImageDataProvider)

[arunjose696]

DefaultRangeIndicator previously used Image(Device, ImageData) constructor to draw a grid to display the selected range.

Previously, the grid was rendered using a 1×1 pixel checkerboard pattern (blue and white), which was mainly inteded to work at 100% zoom. However, at higher zoom levels (e.g., 150%, 200%), the visual intensity of the pattern becomes different, causing the grid to appear visually inconsistent across zooms.

Figures below uses Image(Device, ImageData)

200%

100%

The new implementation uses Image(Device, ImageDataProvider) adapts the grid's block size based on the zoom scale. Instead of always using 1×1 blocks, it calculates the block size by rounding the zoom factor:

For zoom levels like 100%, 125%, etc., block size = 1 (no change).

For higher zoom levels like 150%, 200%, etc., block size = 2.

This means the grid will now use 2×2 rectangles for higher zooms, resulting in a visual appearance that better matches how the original 1×1 pattern looks on standard (100%) displays. This preserves visual consistency across different zoom levels and monitor scaling settings.

Figures below Uses Image(Device, ImageDataProvider)

100%

125%

150%

175%

200%

Contributes to vi-eclipse/Eclipse-Platform#199

[github-actions]

Test Results

 2 778 files  ±0   2 778 suites  ±0   1h 35m 3s ⏱️ - 2m 37s
 7 928 tests +1   7 699 ✅ +1  228 💤 ±0  1 ❌ ±0 
23 337 runs  +3  22 590 ✅ +3  746 💤 ±0  1 ❌ ±0 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 4e03f11. ± Comparison against base commit a9213eb.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[fedejeanne]

The code works, just some minor comments regarding coding practices.

[fedejeanne]

Last change: please adapt the commit message so that the 1st line has <=80 characters.

Something like:

Use constructor Image(Device, ImageDataProvider) in DefaultRangeIndicator

The rest of the commit message is fine, just the 1st line is too long.

[arunjose696]

Use constructor Image(Device, ImageDataProvider) in DefaultRangeIndicator

Done

[eclipse-platform-bot]

This pull request changes some projects for the first time in this development cycle.
Therefore the following files need a version increment:

bundles/org.eclipse.ui.workbench.texteditor/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF

An additional commit containing all the necessary changes was pushed to the top of this PR's branch. To obtain these changes (for example if you want to push more changes) either fetch from your fork or apply the git patch.

Git patch

From f25918e0bc6fa2efdbf56f3a9c72ac1a06669541 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Eclipse Platform Bot <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2025 09:43:17 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] Version bump(s) for 4.37 stream


diff --git a/bundles/org.eclipse.ui.workbench.texteditor/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF b/bundles/org.eclipse.ui.workbench.texteditor/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
index 6b6a3331b6..9d8d7de9aa 100644
--- a/bundles/org.eclipse.ui.workbench.texteditor/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
+++ b/bundles/org.eclipse.ui.workbench.texteditor/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ Manifest-Version: 1.0
 Bundle-ManifestVersion: 2
 Bundle-Name: %pluginName
 Bundle-SymbolicName: org.eclipse.ui.workbench.texteditor; singleton:=true
-Bundle-Version: 3.19.200.qualifier
+Bundle-Version: 3.19.300.qualifier
 Bundle-Activator: org.eclipse.ui.internal.texteditor.TextEditorPlugin
 Bundle-ActivationPolicy: lazy
 Bundle-Vendor: %providerName
-- 
2.49.0

Further information are available in Common Build Issues - Missing version increments.

[fedejeanne]

I just manually bumped the version, like the bot was supposed to do on its own (see #3004 (comment)).

@HannesWell just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what could have gone wrong? Is it maybe because Arun is not a contributor yet and I need to approve the workflow runs?

[HeikoKlare]

I just manually bumped the version, like the bot was supposed to do on its own (see #3004 (comment)).

HannesWell just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what could have gone wrong?

That's a known limitation: the bot cannot push to forks of organizations. I think it's not even related to the bot but it's the same for any other maintainer.

[fedejeanne]

The check failures are unrelated and the flaky test has been documented in #3042

[HannesWell]

I just manually bumped the version, like the bot was supposed to do on its own (see #3004 (comment)).
HannesWell just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what could have gone wrong?

That's a known limitation: the bot cannot push to forks of organizations. I think it's not even related to the bot but it's the same for any other maintainer.

Exactly. I just created eclipse-platform/eclipse.platform.releng.aggregator#3136 to warn in case as it's a reoccurring issue.